8bit? 420? If you record with a LUT baked in

[SRV1981]

Heard a discussion that if you’re filming and baking a LUT internally and aren’t going to do much grading (ie Davinci etc) in post, that internal recording 8bit won’t produce degradation compared to 10 bit. 
 

is this accurate? If so, does that mean filming the same clip in 4:2:0 would also not affect the final image? 
 

scenario would be to prevent overheating in smaller bodies, extend space on SD cards etc. 

 

thanks for any info 

[kye]

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Heard a discussion that if you’re filming and baking a LUT internally and aren’t going to do much grading (ie Davinci etc) in post, that internal recording 8bit won’t produce degradation compared to 10 bit. 
 

is this accurate? If so, does that mean filming the same clip in 4:2:0 would also not affect the final image? 
 

scenario would be to prevent overheating in smaller bodies, extend space on SD cards etc. 

 

thanks for any info 

10-bit is always better than 8-bit, and 4:2:2 is always better than 4:2:0, but the question is if that difference is actually visible / meaningful.  If you're doing very little grading in post then 8-bit vs 10-bit and 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 probably doesn't have any visible or meaningful difference.

But I suggest doing a test.  Just find a bunch of scenes around the house (or not out of the way) and shoot the same composition in each mode and then just load them up side-by-side and look at them.  If the 8-bit 4:2:0 shot doesn't make your stomach turn then just go with it.

In the end, if you can lessen the impact or eliminate overheating, that you can lessen or eliminate the impact of running out of SD card space, then that means you can relax more while recording, you could shoot more, you can have extra time and energy and headspace that was previously devoted to worrying about or managing these things.  If you can have more headspace and be more relaxed while shooting then the way you use the camera, and the way that you behave while recording will be better.  If you behave better then what is in front of the camera might also be better.

So, realistically, the option is potentially of having a very slightly worse recording of potentially much better material.

[KnightsFan]

I don't know if this is universal, or just the cameras I've tested, but I've found that recording 8 bit produces blocky color artifacts that are visible even without log recording or color grading. See my example in the other thread, and note that the comparison is with roughly equivalent bitrate (In this particular example, the 10 bit file ended up slightly smaller but within a couple %).

 

[SRV1981]

5 hours ago, kye said:

10-bit is always better than 8-bit, and 4:2:2 is always better than 4:2:0, but the question is if that difference is actually visible / meaningful.  If you're doing very little grading in post then 8-bit vs 10-bit and 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 probably doesn't have any visible or meaningful difference.

But I suggest doing a test.  Just find a bunch of scenes around the house (or not out of the way) and shoot the same composition in each mode and then just load them up side-by-side and look at them.  If the 8-bit 4:2:0 shot doesn't make your stomach turn then just go with it.

In the end, if you can lessen the impact or eliminate overheating, that you can lessen or eliminate the impact of running out of SD card space, then that means you can relax more while recording, you could shoot more, you can have extra time and energy and headspace that was previously devoted to worrying about or managing these things.  If you can have more headspace and be more relaxed while shooting then the way you use the camera, and the way that you behave while recording will be better.  If you behave better then what is in front of the camera might also be better.

So, realistically, the option is potentially of having a very slightly worse recording of potentially much better material.

This nails my thinking precisely but too amateur to articulate. I’m trying to find examples on YT and whatever I do find I see no difference between 8-10 unless you’re heavy grading log. So if you’re doing that then I can see overheating being a concern but if you’re not doing much grading shoot 8 bit with burned in LUT?

 

2 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I don't know if this is universal, or just the cameras I've tested, but I've found that recording 8 bit produces blocky color artifacts that are visible even without log recording or color grading. See my example in the other thread, and note that the comparison is with roughly equivalent bitrate (In this particular example, the 10 bit file ended up slightly smaller but within a couple %).

 

What camera did you shoot? I don’t see really any difference 

[KnightsFan]

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

What camera did you shoot? I don’t see really any difference 

That was a Z Cam E2-M4. I saw similar results with the XT3 back when I used that primarily. Fwiw, I also saw similar color issues comparing Canon 5D3 8 bit vs magic lantern Raw. The color blocks are most obvious in relatively uniform gradients, such as skies. This tree shot isn't the best viewing since it's so busy with high frequency changes, but you can still see it pretty easily when you zoom to 100% or view on a 4K monitor, especially in motion. Most obvious is the greenish splotch in the bottom area that I highlighted, and the upper highlighted area has red and green splotches.

If it's not a big enough deal for what you do, then great! To me, it's a big enough deal, since I have the option of 10 bit. There's no downside: file size is the same, and I've never encountered overheating on any camera ever (shooting narrative I take relatively short clips with time in between).

That's not to say the difference is uber important... I mean I am splitting hairs about something that has very little bearing on the final product. I'm posting here to show what the difference is not to tell you that it matters for you. All else being equal, I'll always use 10 bit on the cameras I've tested.

[JulioD]

8 bit 420 can be just fine as long as you don’t want to do anything to it later grade wise.  
 

As long as you’re happy with what comes out of the camera then you won’t SEE much of a difference.  
 

you will definitely SEE the difference between 8bit and 10bit if you try to match two cameras that look different of if the WB is off or has some lighting hue you don’t like.  
 

Basically anytime you want to grade or manipulate the image it is very brittle and won’t handle much correction. 10 bit will. 

[kye]

15 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I don't know if this is universal, or just the cameras I've tested, but I've found that recording 8 bit produces blocky color artifacts that are visible even without log recording or color grading. See my example in the other thread, and note that the comparison is with roughly equivalent bitrate (In this particular example, the 10 bit file ended up slightly smaller but within a couple %).

 

I suspect it's a symptom of how the camera processes the image rather than a limitation of 8-bit images.  I know this because the images you posted to the forum will be 8-bit images, so if it was a limitation with all 8-bit images then it would be visible on all images posted.

I can see it, when zoomed radically and saturated and being pointed out, but suspect that it wouldn't be visible under normal circumstances.  If that was the price to avoid overheating and storage anxiety while recording then it would have to be a pretty specific set of circumstances for that to win out over the increased creativity. 

[zlfan]

On 3/3/2024 at 5:08 AM, SRV1981 said:

Heard a discussion that if you’re filming and baking a LUT internally and aren’t going to do much grading (ie Davinci etc) in post, that internal recording 8bit won’t produce degradation compared to 10 bit. 
 

is this accurate? If so, does that mean filming the same clip in 4:2:0 would also not affect the final image? 
 

scenario would be to prevent overheating in smaller bodies, extend space on SD cards etc. 

 

thanks for any info 

according to my experience, this is true. 

[zlfan]

but strong codecs are better than weak codecs.